Yes, MORE on religion and role playing

[Rich Forest]

Ralph,

I think you're overstating the case a bit on your refutation of John's example. I don't know how you can reasonably argue that the gender or race of the competition is immaterial when racial slurs have been made. I mean, how can you argue that race isn't important if race is being used as a weapon? I'm really kind of stunned by the argument. I don't think John was saying that whenever someone is horrible to a black person to get a job, whenever someone backstabs a woman to get the advantage, that it must be racism and sexism. But if someone uses racial slurs (or anti-woman slurs) as part of the package of gaining advantage? Yup. Sorry, I don't see how you can argue that there is no racism or sexism there. Even if the person making the slurs doesn't believe them (and I question this possibility as well), they are still contributing to the greater problems of racism and sexism in society.

I think one thing that you keep repeating, that is worth repeating, is that it's important not to overstate the case. You're pointing out where it seems to you that people are overstating their cases. That is fair enough—from the standpoint of argumentation, it's possible to lose the audience by going at things too strongly. But I think you need to realize that you may be doing the same thing. No one here is making arguments that are purely reasonable and rational and apolitical.

And this is where I also have to note that I agree with you on what you said about power. Labels like misogynist, homophobe, etc. are used as labels to gain power over another group. Power is the issue here, and I think it would be disingenuous of someone to fight against prejudice and pretend that it isn't about gaining power. Of course it's about power. And here, I think, is where we come to a kind of sticking point. These issues are highly politicized, highly charged. People have power to gain here, and people have power to lose. And frankly, it's just hard to talk reasonably about. Ralph, you seem to be arguing that (correct me if I'm overgeneralizing) humans disempower others to gain power for themselves. This is natural human behavior. It's just the way things are. Is it fair to say that you think it's a bit naïve not to recognize this as just something humans do? I'm not sure it's possible to argue with "that's just how people are," except to say, "maybe it isn't, or maybe it doesn't have to be." There are, as you pointed out yourself, some fundamental disagreements here, and this may be one of them. I don't know that we are going to all agree on "how people are," or what "natural behavior" is. So some people are going to disagree perhaps on philosophical grounds that you won't accept. And likewise, some people aren't going to buy your arguments because they won't accept the philosophical grounds that your arguments are built on.

Rich

[clehrich]

Movies portraying historical or literary events should endeavor to be as literal to the source as possible given the difference in medium.  To do otherwise is IMO the height of hubris.  The idea that some hollywood screenwriter can somehow "improve" upon a work of literature that stood the test of centuries is completely ludicrous to me.

Unless you're discussing some RPG based on Dante or something, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.  Setting aside putative centuries of approval, if you make an RPG of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, you change the message, simply because you change the medium -- the medium is, to a significant extent, the message.  When you choose to take on the Star Wars RPG, if you limit yourself to representing precisely and only the universe and focus and purpose presented in the films, then you limit players to playing the movies.  This seems pointless.  If, on the other hand, you divorce the universe background from the particular plot, you radically change the message and point: you can tell tales of horror, viciousness, and grimy vile behavior with that universe; you can do Film Noir with that universe.  But George Lucas will sure as hell think you've changed his message.

Further I completely and utterly disagree with your definitions of racism or sexism being about depowering others in order to gain power for self.  That's not an -ism.  That's life.  The proof is in your own example.  If you compete for a job by using slurs against your competition...you may well be an untrustworthy, backstabbing, treacherous SOB.  But its completely immaterial what gender or race your competition was.

Let me try this differently.  If you try to backstab someone on grounds that he's black, what you're doing in fact depends on the people you're dealing with -- apart from this one guy -- having racist tendencies.  Otherwise the whole operation is pointless.  Now if it works, you have at least encouraged the other folks to be racist, if not in fact even more so than they already are.  How is this not racist behavior?  Is that worse than simply backstabbing someone by lying about him?  Yes.  I have no problem saying that this is more vicious, because you in effect trash everyone associated.

It's as though you said, "This guy not only is a thief, but he's black too."  Of course that's two crimes; if you'd just said, "He's a thief," that would be bad behavior, but to add "and of course you hate all black people, right?" adds a second piece of bad behavior.

But too often words like "misogynist" or "racist" or "homophobe" have nothing whatsoever to do with helping solve that problem, and everything to do with one group using labels as a lever to gain power over another group.  At this point these words become just another form of hate speech no different than nigger or faggot or dago.

No, to be sure, such terms can be used as inverse versions of the same.  To the appropriate audience, you can say, "And he's a racist" and have it stick pretty well, and that's also horrible.  You know what?  It's also racist.  As you say, it cheapens the nature of racism such that racism becomes a yes/no, binary reality, which it simply isn't.

In other words, to claim either that all blacks are bad or that all prejudice (in a literal sense of pre-judgment) is bad is necessarily discriminatory.  Is this solvable?  No.  Is it something we should work on?  Yes.  Is it something we should be sensitive to?  Yes.  Is it something we should readily denounce when promulgated as "family entertainment" in Hollywood?  Yes.  Is it a problem in RPGs?  Yes.

I just don't understand why the fact that there are multiple kinds of discriminatory behavior and multiple kinds of approaches to eliminating it makes it acceptable for a given text to say, "Hey, we're not racist, we just think that black characters ought to be shiftless and lazy; but you know, it's a fantasy world, so it doesn't count."

Chris Lehrich

[John Kim]

Movies portraying historical or literary events should endeavor to be as literal to the source as possible given the difference in medium.  To do otherwise is IMO the height of hubris.  The idea that some hollywood screenwriter can somehow "improve" upon a work of literature that stood the test of centuries is completely ludicrous to me.  If you want to deliver a different "message" then come up with unique material.  

Yup, I think this is a fundamental disagreement.  Just to explain my position a little better...  To my mind, if you don't have anything to say, then you shouldn't talk.  This applies equally to original works and adaptations.  A movie adaptation that has nothing to add to the original book is a waste of time.  Rather than going through all that work, the creators should just tell people to read the book.  You should only make the movie in the first place if you have something to say different than what is there from reading the book.  That doesn't mean it is "better" than the book, just that it has to say something new or there is no point in making it.  

The same thing for me is true of RPGs.  For example, I am running a James Bond 007 campaign now with a homosexual protagonist (among others).  As Chris Lehrich put it, Ian Fleming would likely be turning over in his grave.  I consider this a fine thing.  A similar impulse lead me to make a female PC for our Lord of the Rings campaign.  This should probably get split out into a separate topic if we want to talk further.  

Further I completely and utterly disagree with your definitions of racism or sexism being about depowering others in order to gain power for self.  That's not an -ism.  That's life.  The proof is in your own example.  If you compete for a job by using slurs against your competition...you may well be an untrustworthy, backstabbing, treacherous SOB.  But its completely immaterial what gender or race your competition was.  

Er, yes it is, IMO.  It is material because by definition it is easier to pick on the disempowered, the people who aren't popular or numerous.  Suppose I'm a white person in the turn-of-the-century Southern U.S.  My job is threatened because a black person may do it cheaper.  So I ride out with the KKK, go out in the black part of town, and lynch some to keep them in line.  My job is now protected.  

According to you, I'm not being a racist.  I'm just picking on blacks because they happen to be an easy target to pick on.  I'm a horrible person, but I could just as easily have picked on someone else.  I'm saying that's what racism is!!!  Racism isn't a separate behavior from self-interest.  It is a form of self-interest.  By promoting the interests of your race over other races (which is always expressed on individuals), you help yourself.

This is pretty thoroughly off-topic, though, so I won't post any more on it.

(Editted to fix syntax)

[clehrich]

Oh -- somehow I missed Rich's post, probably because it starts page 4.  What he said.  100%.

One other clarification or confusion.  Suppose we design a game in which all black characters (and let's make sure that all characters are black or white) are shiftless and lazy, but have rhythm; all female characters are weak and sentimental and inclined to hysteria, and also not basically very logical.

Is this game racist and sexist?  Not necessarily.  Suppose the point, in fact, is to force everyone to grapple with the force and absoluteness of these stereotypes; that's the Premise, if you like.  Is that racist and sexist?  Again, not necessarily, and apparently not by intention.  Indeed, it seems that the intention might be the opposite.

Will it be labeled racist and sexist by some folks?  Of course.  For the same reason, Life of Brian was labeled blasphemous, despite the fact that Jesus actually appears in the film doing the Sermon on the Mount quite straight, making the point that Brian is not Jesus.

In other words, it's certainly true that claims of racism and sexism can be used as political weapons against the undeserving.  Does that mean that all unintentional racism is OK?  Is it perfectly OK that Jar-Jar Binks is a grotesque mush-mouf slur on feet?

If you look around on the web, or in the first Boondocks book, there is a Boondocks cartoon (by Aaron McGruder) which has Jar-Jar doing a Step'n Fetchit routine, complete with watermelon and o-tay.  A later strip has Jar-Jar as Black Panther, having read The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon and so forth.  Is this unfair?

Chris Lehrich

[S'mon]

I own Avalanche Press's 'Greenland Saga', I'd definitely agree that it comes across as sexist in several parts.  The author would claim this was 'dealing with historical reality', but there's a-historical sexism there too IMO.

Re the quote from the Star Trek game, it seems like a faithful rendition of the 1960s source material; the sexism is exactly that inherent in the TV show's portrayal of female characters - pretty advanced for the time, I'd definitely say, but definitely portraying females as weaker and more emotional than their male counterparts.

Re the Drow - Gygax created them for the World of Greyhawk.  He also created the Sueloise, a race of pale-skinned, blond-haired humans known for their villainy, scheming, cowardice and racism.  Their Scarlet Brotherhood secret order uses a Nazi-like symbol.  I haven't heard any complaints about this racist stereotyping of Nordic types or whatever, not that their culture bears any great deal more resemblance to real-world cultures than the drow does.   The Scarlet Brotherhood are one of my favourite villains.

[pete_darby]

With reference to the trek book... Is there any text at any point that says anything along the lines of "Okay, this is representing late 60's US TV. The cutting edge of it, at times, but still late 60's US. So women have jobs... as glorified stenographers and receptionists. And all look hot in mini-skirts. We have a rainbow nation on board, but with the white, middle class, hormone on legs in charge.

"This may bug you: if so, change it. But we've decided to maintain the attitudes of the time in the game, warts and all. To do otherwise would be to produce "Classic Trek, but done the way we want it!" which we see as a waste of the license."

For some, that won't excuse, but without anything like that, we don't know whether these were genuine design decisions, or the natural attitudes of the designers.

Now I'm wracking my brains for the DS9 episode where Sisko states he doesn't want to enter the Holo-nightclub based around the 60's nightclub, because he sees it as legitemizing the endemic racism of 60's culture, however it's been "whitewashed" for the holo-suite.

BTW, I always read the Ferenghi as arabic racist stereotypes (especially given the etymology of "ferenghi" from, iirc, a mid-eastern term for foreigner).

[S'mon]

Re your comment the Trek game - that sounds a bit over-laboured to me.  I doubt there was a conscious design to abide by the norms of the setting - surely that's always the default assumption anyway?  I'd think if they had decided to change those norms, that would be more worthy of comment.

That said, I suppose in design notes on a Trek game it might be worth mentioning the apparent changing roles of women in Star Fleet from eg the Pilot episode, where a woman can be Number One - the first officer - without it apparently being unusual, to the sexism, miniskirts and more limited equality of the classic TOS era, to the political correctness and men-may-not-be-sexual-aggressors era of TNG,  and so on.

Of course the latest show 'Enterprise' raises particular problems since being a Berman/Braga show the society it presents has far more in common with DS9 and Voyager than it does with older Trek.  It could be treated as a bad  'historical' late-24th-century holo-tv show set back in the 21st century, I guess, importing totally ahistorical norms of conduct into the era.    >:)

[pete_darby]

Well, looks like with the Trek issue, we're back to the advice of "if you're working within a genre, you better damn well know and state the conventions you're using." Assuming "everyone will know what's conventional" looks like it's leading to thematic train-wrecks in ST, Glorantha and (name your favourite setting here...)

I doubt very much that the examples of inherent sexism within ST:TOS:RPG were accidental. There've been far too many discussion I've seen including the designers where they've been immensley proud of how the conventions of TOS, compared to TNG, they've included in each book. And they're not guys who'd pass up the chance to re-inforce the conventions of their chosen genre by any means necessary.

But why would it be "over-laboured" to state your conventions? I couldn't think of one setting that wouldn't benefit from it. I'm trying.

[S'mon]

I doubt very much that the examples of inherent sexism within ST:TOS:RPG were accidental. There've been far too many discussion I've seen including the designers where they've been immensley proud of how the conventions of TOS, compared to TNG, they've included in each book. And they're not guys who'd pass up the chance to re-inforce the conventions of their chosen genre by any means necessary.

But why would it be "over-laboured" to state your conventions? I couldn't think of one setting that wouldn't benefit from it. I'm trying.

I suppose it doesn't do any harm to take an explicit look at the setting from the outside in.  The controversial upcoming Starship Troopers game from Mongoose is apparently going to do something like this with regards to the politics of the setting, and I look forward to seeing how it works.

I guess, I just don't find it surprising that in basing a game on a setting, the game should adhere to the explicit and implicit conventions of that setting, and not deem it worthy of comment.  I expect a Conan RPG to present the in-game cultures and attitudes as sexist but allow for powerful female fighters (beautiful and scantily clad, of course).   I'd expect a Gor RPG to present all the female characters as simpering slave-girls.  I'd expect a TOS Trek game to present female Star Fleet officers as generally competent but less sure of themselves and more emotional than their male peers - and beautiful and miniskirted of course.  I would also want it to let me play a wholly competent, more severe, less feminine 'Number One' type female officer, though, especially in the pre-TOS era of rollneck sweaters.  I'd expect it to let me play a Vulcan, but have to put up with constant racist cracks about my species from the human crewmembers.  And so on.

[Thuringwaethiel]

I expect a Conan RPG to present the in-game cultures and attitudes as sexist but allow for powerful female fighters (beautiful and scantily clad, of course).   I'd expect a Gor RPG to present all the female characters as simpering slave-girls.  I'd expect a TOS Trek game to present female Star Fleet officers as generally competent but less sure of themselves and more emotional than their male peers - and beautiful and miniskirted of course.  I would also want it to let me play a wholly competent, more severe, less feminine 'Number One' type female officer, though, especially in the pre-TOS era of rollneck sweaters.  I'd expect it to let me play a Vulcan, but have to put up with constant racist cracks about my species from the human crewmembers.  And so on.

Funny. To each their own, I guess, but I've so often heard RPGs been described along the lines "be what you want, do what you want" as opposed to literature, movies and other "immobile" mediums. Examples of variability and innovation are common. Call me naive, but somehow I then expect to find rules that support the variability and innovations. Of course when I read a book about Conan or Gor, I know what to expect. But if I play a RPG of Conan or Gor, I want to play it my way. If the system does not support this, it's trash. IMO, of course, but if someone wants to sell me his (pronoun intentional) game system, he'd better take heed.

My first system, ICE's MERP, allowed orcs and trolls as PCs, listed unflattering things about "good" cultures and presented different sexes and races in balanced light. Not a perfect system, mind you, far from it, but several important issues were as they should be. Of course the group makes the game, but the system may be either an aid or an obstacle. (MERP is an obstacle when it comes to number-crunching, but helps creating the atmosphere.)

Yes, I have a point here. Good luck finding it..

[S'mon]

Fair enough.  I know when I GM'd WEG's Star Wars RPG, a lot of my players wanted to play Imperials, which the game as written didn't support.  This didn't annoy me though - I expected a Star Wars RPG to be about playing galactic freedom-fighting heroes, not Captain Piett's struggle for advancement within the Imperial Navy.  So I adapted the game-as-written to run the kind of game we wanted to play, with lots of intrigue and backstabbing inside the Imperial military, and occasional scuffles with Rebels (including the Rebel PCs).  It worked fine.

A tie-in game that tried to ban me from subverting the genre - for this Trek example, say by playing someone like Majel Barrett's 'number one' character as a Federation starship captain in the Kirk era - would be at most mildly annoying, possibly a bit ridiculous if it contravened the setting's 'background norms'.  IE: In TOS Trek we don't see female starship captains, but the general feel of the setting implies they must exist (albeit as a minority), so it'd be stupid to say players couldn't play one.  Likewise in STTNG, for a long time every StarFleet admiral portrayed onscreen was an African-American woman, but presumably there must be white, male and nonhuman Admirals within Star Fleet.

OTOH in a game set in real medieval Europe I'd be ok with the designers saying that all Knights Templars are male, or somesuch.  It'd be my choice if I wanted to take this historical RPG and have ahistorical female knights as PCs or NPCs.

[pete_darby]

Okay, I'm quite explicitly not saying that an RPG rule text should state "Thou shalt not have strong women" to reinforce conventions, just they should state the conventions, not assume that "everyone knows them."

That way, you know what's an assumption of the setting that may or not be true in specific cases, which are hard-and-fast demands of the setting. Which leads to empowerment of players, not vague oppression by the implied gender roles rife in the rules.

[Mike Holmes]

Damn, I gotta watch those off-hand remarks.

What does all this have to do with religion in RPGs again?

Mike

[clehrich]

What does all this have to do with religion in RPGs again?

We've drifted a bit, certainly, but one of the central arguments of Krista's article depends on her reading of RPG's as significantly sexist.  What I now wonder, though, is what Krista thinks of all this debate about racism, sexism, and so forth, and whether and how that affects her argument.

Chris Lehrich

[John Kim]

Damn, I gotta watch those off-hand remarks.

What does all this have to do with religion in RPGs again?

Well, the original topic was Krista's paper -- which has nothing to do with religion in RPGs (i.e. what your PC believes), but rather is about religious practice (specifically Neopaganism) as compared with RPG practice.  

This should probably be split at the point.  There are two points of relevance here: (1) Librisia/Krista noted Neopaganism has many social similarities with RPG, except that Neopaganism is female-dominated while RPGs are male-dominated.  She was interested in ethnographic studies of why.  There should probably be a new thread for this.  (2) Religious practice is about real-world beliefs, even if they involve dressing up and role assumption.  For example, a religious practice may include storytelling such as parables -- but that story has a goal in the real world beyond just being fun to hear.  I think this line of thought has been picked up in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9738">Feminist Game Design.